Scout Archive

---

DeltaXi65 wrote:

Mask Scent Aggro Penalty – The aggro penalty has been another issue for the Scouts. While I hope that the changes implemented in the next patch will alleviate concern, two other penalties to off-set using Mask Scent have been suggested as replacements to the aggro penalty. The first is to a HAM cost. Since every other skill that provides a benefit uses HAM, this shouldn’t be a majorly controversial addition. As long as it is a reasonable costs, similiar to forage. The second is to scale the aggro by range. Instead of having a strict cut-off of 40 meters, start the current increased percentage as a base at zero meters, and tier it.

0m – 9m = +50% chance of aggro
10m – 19m = +40% chance of aggro
20m – 29m = +30% chance of aggro
30m – 39m = +20% chance of aggro
40m+ = normal

---

With that 50% chance of gaining agro at 0m-9m, that means on average a bio-engineer would have to sneak up on a single critter (with no friends around) 10 times to get a DNA sample for enough DNA to create 1 creature. Not, take into account that most of the times, animals are in groups. With just 2 animals, that increases that number of attempts to 20, just to get enough of 1 type of resource to create just 1 creature. With 3 animals around, then that makes it 40 attempts. With 4 animals, 80 attempts. As you can see, these numbers are getting pretty ridiculous (and it's actually about 3x's worse than that, see my note at the end).

In order for bio-engineers to make good creatures (after our class's cloning fix), we have to get the DNA from the wild. In order to make good high-level creatures, we have to get DNA from creatures that are agro. This, as a result, requires that we depend on mask scent.

Those numbers that your profession is proposing basically makes it impossible for a BE to get the DNA required to make decent creatures. This, in turn, will affect CHs as well.

It might be a good idea to adjust this proposal after you look at how it will affect other professions.

Note:

• This will affect bio-engineers now as well for the same reasons stated here but to a much lesser degree since we can currently craft our own high-level creatures to get DNA from them through a recursive process.


• Those attempt numbers were NOT taking into account a 70% failure rate of DNA sampling NOR were they taking into account the fact that BE's gain agro after some successful and some failed attempts at DNA sampling, NOT based on normal creature agro means.

Jax,

Keep in mind - those numbers that we've requested are ONLY for the chance that the creature will attack you after its broken mask scent.

So there's a 50% chance that IF the creature breaks your maskscent at 0m that it will attack you.

Not a 50% that mask scent will break if you are within 0-9m.

Is that clearer?

B

This would be a ruinous change to our DNA sampling.

Please do not implement a penalty for getting close to aggro creatures, as we are forced to do so in order to craft clones. (must stay within 15m of the creature we are attempting to sample, for about 10 seconds).

I die enough (yes, DIE) while trying to craft with the current system...

Doh, oh, yeah, that makes better sense.

/agree all of a sudden

BE sampling is like CH taming in many ways. You have to approach groups of hostile mob's, target one, and then spend time in close proximity. You also have the chance of failure (which doesn't seem to have any link to the actual CL of the creature). There is also the chance that your target may turn hostile with a failed attempt.

I've had great success by following this procedure:

Stop 70 meters short of the nearest mob in the target group.

Apply fresh Maskscent.

Click my "Peace" hotkey.

WALK into the group and do my taming.

I've seen posts from other BE's and CH's which confirm that the speed at which you are moving makes a huge difference in a mob's chances to break your maskscent. I've also seen unconfirmed reports that, if you stand completely still when your maskscent is broken, that mob's will not aggro. You can then wait out the timer and reapply maskscent and go on with your business. I haven't tested that enough to form a solid opinion, although early results are promising.

Guys,

I think I shoulda been clearer when I wrote this, but I figured everyone would understand what the "maskscent penalty" thing meant.

Oh well. I'm sorry if I freaked anyone out, especially our BE brethren (who cares about the CHs? )

B

Allow me to clarify if I might, since I was the one that made this suggestion to Delta.

Currently, already existing in the game, if maskscent breaks you have a greatly increased chance of an aggressive creature attacking you. You might have noticed the discussions about non-scouts requesting we do not use maskscent at all. It is a combination of this and the buggy fail rate.

When I proposed it, the number was mearly supposed to represent whatever chance currently exists. I don't know what the number is, since I am not a programmer for SWG. The way it works on Test Center, the system works exactly as it does now except past 40 meters the aggro chance is normal (ie, you are safe unless it is a highly aggressive creature) -- the same as it is for a non-scout or if not using maskscent.

I don't think we should have the increased chance at all, but as a compromise, I suggested staging it from the increased chance when next to the creature to a decreasing chance as you move out to that 40 meter range. My system was actually a decrease each meter since that would probably be more efficient to calculate than going through a series of "if-then" statements that also calculated ranges (I think in terms of programming efficiency), but effectively it is a similar system. In game terms it means for travel we should all be safe, but as we approach we increase the chance a creature will spook and lash out if our maskscent fails.

Does that make more sense now?

For the record, I am a master creature handler and a high-level ranger. I definately do not want to propose a change that makes our life worse. As I said, I would prefer no penalty whatsoever, but barring that I wanted something that made sense and let this skill work as I imagine it was intended. Overall I think this is much more elegant of a solution than a hard-capped 40 meter zone of death.